Well, before I bust my hump coding a native MT poll (no, no handy plugins like WP-Polls for Wordpress, thanks so much) let's try out a few of these freebie systems. If we find one that doesn't suck, it will be worth shelling out a few bucks. Of course you can also create your own polls here in the message boards and probably get more discussion and participation than here. But I wanted to fiddle around a bit. I'll be updating the boards next, so watch out in there...
So, whaddya think? Big Vlad or the Tiger of Madras? Cold vodka or hot curry? Twelve games with rapid tiebreaks. How do you see it?
[Closed after 1267 votes. Kramnik by a whisker!]
Go on, give it a try. (Clicking the "see stats" button after you vote will take you away to the community site that provides the poll tracking.)
For me it's all about whether or not Anand is 100% over his horrible Bilbao form. He was unrecognizable and not the type to play possum. As I said a while back, I think these days Anand at 100% beats Kramnik at 100%. But Kramnik's cool pragmatism allows him to survive and even win when he's not at his best. If Anand is shaky at all, he's in real trouble. On the other hand, if you judge them even, that's a plus for Anand, who has proven demonstrably superior in rapid play. It's hardly the economy for betting on the unknowable, but because of Bilbao I'd have to give Vlad the edge. Ideally, of course, they'll both be in great form and we'll have some great chess and a close match. But please, without tiebreaks.
My money is on Kramnik. Although Anand is probably stronger chess-wise, Kramnik is second to none in match play. I think Kramnik's better preparation will determine the match.
Anand's Bilbao's fiasco will not affect Anand. He probably expected it (if not planned it :))
I expect Kramnik to win an early game. Then neutralise the rest and win an late game when Anand risks all.
Duncan
So far the Dirt readers are betting on a narrow victory for Kramnik. I wouldn't overestimate Bilbao, Mig. He simply wasn't focused. Anand was not preparing intensely for months for it! And Kramnik has lost something of the invincibility aura of earlier years. But I think you've gotta judge em based on their fully prepared, completely focused "selves", not on how they did in their last tournaments. The match is massively important for both, they will give it their all and fight to the last. I want Anand to win, but based on their playing styles Kramnik will triumph IMHO. But noone will be happier than me if Anand manages to pull it off!
You've got to go for Anand. Two overwhelming reasons. First, never bet on a newlywed in any event which requires total focus over a long period. Second, Anand just needs it more. This is the moment of his life: if doesn't win this he'll never be remembered as world champion (except in India, maybe). Kramnik's already had his supreme moment.
IMO most polls are frivolous and overrated. Unless it (1) does something for your bottom line; (2) somehow otherwise important, maybe it's best to wait for a free plugin.
Unless it poses a serious question(s), and is well phrased, it tends to cheapen a site.
Less is more, in this case.
Btw, where's the poll selection indicating the victory probabilities of:
Anand 60%
Kramnik 40%
That's my guess. It's not statistically exact (I'm nitpicking, I know) to select "100% probability X or Y wins by +2". Better to give probability distribution.
I've made a similar comment at SPolgar's site to the effect that both players seem past their peak years.
Kramnik's definitely not fully his old self.
He used to embody the "immovable object", but now regularly loses 1 or 2 games every tournament, without having increased his 2 or 3 expected wins.
I would have slightly favored Kramnik in a year 2000 Anand-Kramnik match (and Anand in 1998). Either Kramnik hasn't 100% recovered from his illness, or has simply lost a step at age 34.
Anand seems to have lost something as well, but not as much.
I think if it's very tight match (which i expect) I would favour Kramnik's nerves. Even if it goes to rapid play-off I could still see Vlad pulling it off. If on the other hand Anand goes +2 then he would be too hard to catch. I expect Anand to open 1.d4 and Kramnik to play 1. c4 !!!!!
Kramnik's results have become slightly erratic. He's no longer Smooth Vlad anymore. Anand will nick Vlad's new moments for at a win or two, which is enough to swing the match.
Kramnik can be a formidable match player, but we don't know wich one will show up on a given day.
If we see the Kramnik that intimidated Kasparov to the point where the greatest player in history was offering an early draw with white while behind on their match, Anand has no chance. If we see the lackluster, ultra-safe Kramnik that almost lost to Leko, Anand will finally become a legitimate World Champion.
Anand is already a legitimate champion and deserves his status. It is not as if Anand is #20 in the world holding the title.
I'm not sure where this business about Kramnik being a formidable match player comes from. He beat Kasparov, tied with Leko (being forced to win the last game), failed to beat computers in two matches and scraped by Topalov in the ill-fated match. He lost a number of matches but was given (not earned) the opportunity to play Kasparov in an illegitimate World Championship match.
Kramnik ability as a match players is over-emphasized.
I fully agree with Daaim, and would like to add that this match makes no sense. Kramnik is indeed overrated and his victories over-emphasized. We should have one of those Chinese (or even better-the Vietnamese) players instead of him.
Given that Kramnik not only beat Kasparov and Topalov in matches but also has a lifetime plus score at standard time controls versus Kasparov, Topalov, and Anand, it's difficult to understand Mig's stated opinion that "these days Anand at 100% beats Kramnik at 100%." Perhaps he merely means that Kramnik's best today isn't what it once was?
I am one of the skewed few predicting +2 or more for Vishy.
Let's face it, what has Kramnik ever done except beat Kasparov, draw Leko, and squeak by against Topalov?
Anand plays chess and wins tournaments. He's better and more versatile than Kramnik.
That being said, I like Kramnik, too, and am simply looking forward to the match.
You know something is not quite 100% with a player who misses Nf8 + Qh7 mate.
If a player begins to miss one-move mates he's also missing 10-move combos and 5-move combos in ways we (mostly) amateurs don't easily see.
That's probably what's leading to his one/two losses per tournament, and why I think Anand's a favorite.
He's simply not the Vlad "the invincible" Kramnik of year 2000 anymore.
I disagree with Mig. I think Kramnik at 100% beats Anand at 100% relatively easily, but the thing is: Kramnik rarely plays at 100%. I think Anand has been a more consistent one recently and Bilbao can probably be discarded, since Anand didn't go 100% with the match coming up (like he himself has said in a recent interview).
Anand probably does need it more, since he never won the title yet. But I think Kramnik will have an advantage, simply because Anand is a good matchup for him, openings-wise. Anand will have to pretty much refute the Petroff or switch to 1.d4, (which I don't think is likely) if he is to win, while Kramnik will either work the Catalan (and he is great with it and beat Anand with it in Wijk 2007) or have the white side of the Semi-slav, most likely the Anti-Moscow system, which lends itself to killer opening novelties, like Topalov's Nxf7. And playing the black side of the Anti-Moscow Semi-Slav against a preparation guru like Kramnik doesn't seem like a great prospect.
I think Anand's mental toughness is a question mark. He doesn't have a lot of experience with matches, and in the only comparable match he did play (even if it was in 1995), he fell apart after his first loss to Kasparov. Also, sometimes he seems to lose interest after a tournament loss. So it remains to be seen whether Anand can withstand the all-out match on that high a level.
Also, I am not convinced Anand will be a big favorite in the rapid tie-break. Kramnik's nerves will probably make up for the rapid disadvantage he could have normally. I wouldn't bet against Kramnik in a rapid tie-break, but then again, I wouldn't bet against Anand in a rapid tie-break, either.
Anand does have his own strengths. He is less prone to blunders and he is probably superior to Kramnik in dynamic positions (like the Sicilians). So it will be a close match.
But the main thing is: I think Kramnik matches up well with Anand opening-wise. We talk a lot about Kramnik's inability to win with black due to his match opening repertoire. That is all fine, but matches are precisely the time when having a match opening repertoire pays off. I have to consider Kramnik the favorite due to this good opening match-up, as well as the fact he is a proven performer in matches of this level and has shown resilience under a variety of circumstances.
chesswise they are equal strong. it's a match and it all comes down to psychology. kramnik has shown many times this is his strong suit. anand has shown many times this is his achilles' heel. anands only plus is the rapid play off, but there won't be any....
"Anand is already a legitimate champion and deserves his status. It is not as if Anand is #20 in the world holding the title."
Nah, Anand is not the champion in the sense the word "champion" has been understood in the chess wolrd for 100+ years. He does have a chance to become one, and he needs to beat Kramnik.
"I'm not sure where this business about Kramnik being a formidable match player comes from. He beat Kasparov, tied with Leko (being forced to win the last game), failed to beat computers in two matches and scraped by Topalov"
Well, if beating the best ever in a match, then coming back from behind on someone like Leko to defend the title, and then beating another 2800+ player while spotting him a game with white doesn't make one a formidable match player, it is hard to imagine what might. Doesn't Anand's own history of long WC matches consist of a sole match against Kasparov where Anand basically embarassed himself and choked? Kramnik's match history doesn't quite match that of Kasparov, but we are not comparing it to that of Kasparov, as he is playing Vishy Anand.
I still think Wang is the best.
Oh dear. Playjunior do not know much about chess.
I will be cheering for Anand but Kramnik has to be the favorite in match play. Regardless of who wins let's hope it's a scintillating contest.
Obviously, it is hard to predict the outcome of this. It seems to come down to form, preparation, match strategy, physical condition (according to Bareev's thesis in FROM LONDON..., a big part of Kramnik's success or lack thereof), and nerves. Plenty of times we have seen the advantage shift back and forth over the course of a match, so I don't think we can have a way of figuring out who will win.
Besides, I'm not good enough of a player to know who is better at what the players (in interviews) have refered to as sheer "chessplaying ability."
I think Anand wants it badly; however, Kramnik loses a lot of cred if he loses here, so it's not like he's aloof to the match. They are both taking it very seriously.
While I don't love the rule of a champion winning if there's a draw, I would so much rather a drawn match than rapid tiebreaks!
I feel it's more that Rubinstein doesn't know much about humour.
I expect Big Vlad to play safe and dull to blunt Vishy's aggression (much like the Kaspy match). Unfortunately this means it will all be decided in a messy tiebreak leaving us painfully unfulfilled. I consider Anand to have the quicker mind (even at his "advanced age") -- so he has the edge in the tiebreak.
Mig, probably not good to have your "prediction" poll expire on Nov 6. Poll should expire just before the A-K match starts in mid-October.
Anand's awful Bilbao result is unimportant. Anand was conserving his openings and his emotional energy, for Kramnik.
In Bareev's book "From London to Elista" we saw Kramnik's level of effort and devotion go from total sky-high against Kasparov in 2000, to hopefully good enuf against Leko in 2004.
I think Anand wants it more, to silence people who criticize how Anand gained his current WCChamp title.
Anand by +1.
My biggest hopes for the A-K match are that there will be...
(A) at least 6 decisive games (in regular time control), and
(B) no need for tie-breakers.
Russianbear wrote:
{
Anand is not the champion in the sense the word "champion" has been understood in the chess wolrd for 100+ years.
}
Agreed.
It is not even sensible to say that winning a TOURNAMENT could transfer a MATCH based title. Apples and oranges.
This Oct 2008 Anand-Kramnik is essentially another titles REUNIFICATION match.
FIDE better get on with Kamsky-Topalov.
Any news on when the long-promised board upgrade is going to happen?
Kramnik is going to win the championship title. He is leading games against Anand 6-4. I feel that Kramnik is the best match player today. Anand is also "the greatest". So it'll be very interesting match to watch and to learn from. It is not "fair" to judge Anand's performance, however, on how he played in previous tournament because he just could not show his opening preparation for the World Championship.
Re: "long-promised board upgrade":
Yeah, Mig, are you still using that crummy roll-up vinyl job? How about a nice wooden board, maybe something in Hungarian walnut, lacquered. . . .
I give Kramnik the edge. Vishy's style is more suitable for tournaments than is Vlad's. It will be closely contested whomever wins. Don't undervalue Krammy's victory over the peak-form Topalov in their match. He was really +1 going into the tiebreaker. It is possible that Topalov might even be the strongest tournament player at the moment, though Anand's got the better portfolio in that area. I look forward to a great match.
"Nah, Anand is not the champion in the sense the word "champion" has been understood in the chess wolrd for 100+ years."
So Botvinnik was not regarded the champion by the chess world in 1948. Thats news to me.
Alekhine was dead. You can't beat a dead guy in a match. But if the guy's alive the future champion's gotta whack him, mano-a-mano.
Kramnig is the best match player at this moment...bla, bla, bla.... It's just myth. And Anand is not WC - foolishes of last russian defenders of crown. Be sure when Anand is run over Mr Kramnik they will be find some new fool reasons to say that the title is russian. Be sure toiletgate again will not help Mr Kramnik and he will go to the hell.
It's obvious you should have nuked all those communist bastards.
It would mean we could've take Russia's vast oil and metal deposits for free, yes. Obviously a geopolitical oversight by our Imperial Government in Washington DC.
No, it's just obvious that Mr Kramnik never is been in the first top 10 of chessworld and his crown is just present from FIDE and result of imperial ambitions of Cremlin even in the sport. Again - power of Mr Kramnik as chessplayer is Myth!
Don't undervalue Krammy's victory over the peak-form Topalov in their match.
---------------------
More accurately is to say Krammy's+compy's victory over the peak-form Topalov in their match.
Acually you can beat a dead guy at chess, but it would make for a boring match.
Or as my grandfather used to say: "You can drag a dead horse to the water, but you can't make him play chess".
"No, it's just obvious that Mr Kramnik never is been in the first top 10 of chessworld and his crown bla bla bla"
So true dude! I would say that commie bastard has never been top-100 either. He probably barely knows how to play. I say Wang is teh man.
On a side note, it seems we have some of that Wasilla main-street in our beloved chess blog. Came to save us from commies.
Loving your work, playjunior, but surely Wang is just another commie bastard? Isn't it clear that Nakumura is the rightful champ?
Discussions on who was the greatest ever are popping out all over.. Here a more scientific approach:
http://www.truechess.com/web/champs.html
evanhaut...yawn. that page is ridiculous. for onr thing such tests were completely debunked by chessbase. for another just look at steinitz, whose moves are apparently worse than the "average grandmaster". there are clearly some glaring errors of logic here.
Hey, nice poll, Migstradamus !
I think Anand will win but not at all easily.
The styles are different and will be a great match.
Kramnik by a whisker. Judging by their last results they've both slipped a bit chesswise, however Kramnik has proved several times already that he's a formidable sportsman and can win on demand even when he is not at his best. That's gonna be a match of nerves more than a match of chess strength, and Kramnik has a clear edge there.
Anand has an edge in a rapidplay though, which balances the chances a bit, but not enough.
"So Botvinnik was not regarded the champion by the chess world in 1948. Thats news to me."
I don't know if he was or if he wasn't - that was before my time. Chances are at least a part of the chess world had doubts about Botvinnik belonging to the Steinitz tradition in 1948. I myself would not consider Botvinnik the champion if his only claim to the title was the 1948 tournament. (His claim was better than that of Anand because at least they played the 5-game mini matches and, unlike Anand, Botvinnik was able to show his superiority over all the other participants - but still I would not consider him the champ). But he did win several world championship matches in addition to that tournament win, so his title (or lack of it) in 1948 is not the issue. I basically consider the 1948 tournament little more than a contest for the draw odds in the 1951 World Championship match.
Yes, Russianbear. To revive an old but apt image, the 1948 WCC tournament seemed to establish Botvinnik as "first among equals." ...But his match results over the next decade and a half showed he was more than that. But it's also interesting that the Sullivan site cited higher in this thread indicates Botvinnik exhibited his strongest play (as judged by modern-day engines) during the 1930s, and that he was strong enough to be champion as early as 1934.
While I'm not sure how relevant this is in a discussion of rights to the title, I wonder whether Kramnik, Anand, Topalov (or indeed any player active today) will ever influence chess styles and chess training on a scale anything like what Botvinnik did over his career.
Perhaps the question is meaningless. After all, Botvinnik operated in the days when the politically connected and state-funded Soviet chess machine dominated not just the analysis and development of chess theory, but the economics of chess throughout the world...which made it possible for one man to have a degree of influence on chess thought that perhaps could never exist under today's multipolar conditions. It is far from clear to me that even Kasparov had or will have an influence on chess thinking that rivals Botvinnik's.
At any rate, I'm suggesting that Botvinnik's broad contributions to the advancement of chess knowledge, akin to Steinitz, may perhaps legitimately add to his standing as champion.
From the recent Kasparov's interview...
"There’s not a real favorite,..., Anand-Kramnik is much closer, maybe 52-48 within these numbers. " (he means 52% in favour of Kramnik, because of a previous comment)
2-1 Kramnik with 9 draws.
Hmm, the poll site's server is down. Not impressive. Otherwise seemed fairly non-invasive and optically pleasant. But can't have downtime like this. Dagnabbit.
Games 5 and 10 to Vishy and the rest drawn..
Does anyone know if they will play game 12? Nothing at stake at that point after all..
What does Anand have against the Petroff? I'm expecting more 5.Nc3.
Is the battleground with Kramnik as White going to be Semi-Slav, Catalan, or QID? I would not discount the latter.
In such a short match, opening surprises might be more relevant than the actual playing strength of the players (of course taking into account that their playing strength is close).
So, luck is involved in the world championship match. Anand might put training efforts on the Slav and suddenly discovers Kramnik plays the QID or vice-versa. I guess it's impossible to predict the outcome of the match unless a player receives information about the other player preparation.
I believe Kramnik deserves to lose this, based solely on the fact that I still come across the occasional picture of his mullet...
Babson,
How does a Kramnik mullet rank against Anand's hair-piece?
Is this how we should be judging if Carlsen is truly the hair apparent?
>I don't know if he was or if he wasn't - that was before my time.[...]
So why do you write so confidently about what the chess world thought for 100+ years if in fact you don't really know... Please show me anything, e.g. in chess literature that suggests Botvinnik's status in the world of chess was disputed in 1948.
When you say "Steinitz tradition" the history of players avoiding and/or handpicking challengers and the ever changing conditions e.g. rematch guarantees come to my mind. At times this "tradition" seems to have been quite arbitrarily at determinig who the champion is so why not ditch this notion altogether. Advantages of double round robin championship: more games means greater sample size and more value for fans / more exciting chess because they have to go for it also with black pieces / payday for more players. San Luis and Mexico were successes whereas matches can be kind of boring (Brissago). Of course I am excited about Anand-Kramnik but I will probably be less so after a couple of short draws in the Petroff...
As for predictions: normally I'd say Anand but Bilbao was too scary. I don't think this was a bluff and I also can't imagine that he didn't care at all. Then again on webcam he looked apathetic and uninterested (when asked in the press conference after his Linares victory about Bilbao he didn't know what the dates were or if he would play...) Or maybe he just didn't like the playing conditions at all (glass cube). Nonetheless I'd say slight advantage Kramnik.
"So why do you write so confidently about what the chess world thought for 100+ years if in fact you don't really know... "
Because, like I wrote earlier, it doesn't really matter what people thought about Botvinnik, because Botvinnik ended up getting a title in matches, anyway.
"Please show me anything, e.g. in chess literature that suggests Botvinnik's status in the world of chess was disputed in 1948."
There were complaints about the format that were voiced even before the tournament by Fine, who was originally supposed to play in the tournament, too. When a challenger refuses to play because of the flaws of the format, that is a big deal. In fact, to this day some people claim games were thrown in that event, and thus they dispute the validity of the competition, whether directly or indirectly.
But once Botvinnik won the tournament, the matches were back and people could have just take up the "let's wait and see" attitude about Botvinnik. Perhaps we don't know more about because it is a moot point now. Also, it needs to be pointed out (again) that 1948 was called not a tournament, but a MATCH-tournament. It is just that that I, for one, don't consider it a match. It is debatable whether the event was indeed a match in at least some respect, but it shows that the was a feeling in 1948 to emphasize the match aspect of it to show the continuity with the previous WC events. Botvinnik ended up winning all of his mini-matches, so that may have quelled some of the potential criticism, too. But if Botvinnik lost the match in 1951 and then never got the title in match play, I think we'd hear a lot more about 1948 title not being the same as everything that came before it and what followed it. For all we know, he would be as forgotten as the FIDE vote to name Euwe the world champion becasue he was the last person to win a WC match.
So, not only there was criticism of the format of the Hague/Moscow 1948 event in the chess world, the event was called a match-tournament, which implied it was a match in at least some respect. Either one believes it was, in a way, a match or one does not. If one does believe it - problem solved. If one doesn't believe it, at least one can't dispute the idea that there was a feelingof the superiority of the match format in the chess world, since they called something that wasn't a match a "match" - probably in order to try to legitimize the event. At least they had the post-WWII lack of money excuse when they didn't, as they couldn't have a proper qualifier or cycle.
"When you say "Steinitz tradition" the history of players avoiding and/or handpicking challengers and the ever changing conditions e.g. rematch guarantees come to my mind. At times this "tradition" seems to have been quite arbitrarily at determinig who the champion is so why not ditch this notion altogether."
With all the arbitrariness of the match-based championship, it is hard to argue against a notion that the Steinitz tradition produced the greatest players of their respective generations as the champions. Tournaments allow for much more arbitrary results, because one's standings doesn't just depend on one's performance, but also on what happens in games between other players, which can be subject to all kinds of arbitrary factors like illness, etc. Anand catches someone on a bad day and then beats another person because that person is -2 and has gaven up on a tournament, and we have Anand finish ahead of Kramnik even if he is not really a stronger player. Talk about arbitrary. No, matches are a superior format not because it is the traditional way, but because, unlike tournaments, they offer the better player the best chance to win. Tournaments, even supertournaments can occasionally produce someone like Naiditch or Balagan as the winner.
"Advantages of double round robin championship: more games means greater sample size and more value for fans"
Not really. Aeroflot open has even more games, but noone claims it is a superior WC format. I won't speak for all fans, but I for one would rather have Anand and Kramnik play 12 games against each other, than have them only play each other twice and have them play other, weaker players, for the rest of the event. As a fan I don't care which one of them may be slightly better at beating weaker people, I want to know who is the better of the two if they actually play one another.
" / more exciting chess because they have to go for it also with black pieces"
I don't think it is any more exciting than the WC match, really.
"/ payday for more players."
I don't think it is relevant.
"San Luis and Mexico were successes whereas matches can be kind of boring (Brissago)."
Actually, Brissago was very exciting. I enjoyed it a lot. The champ coming from behind to tie a WC match in the last game is exciting stuff. In a WC match, even a short draw is somehow more meaningful than your average round in tournament like San Luis, where Topalov ran away with it from the start.
" Of course I am excited about Anand-Kramnik but I will probably be less so after a couple of short draws in the Petroff..."
I don't think there will be many. this is a relatively short match, so they will try to squeeze as much out of their games with white as they can, I think.
"Tournaments, even supertournaments can occasionally produce someone like Naiditch or Balagan as the winner"
Who says matches cannot produce the same results, if these players were regularly given the opportunity to play matches against the world champion (i.e. the same number of matches as they play super-tournaments). I suspect there would be quite a few upsets. As with tournaments matches are laso affected by external factor such as illness, fatigue etc.
The Kramnik-Kasparov result is an example of how the match format doesn't always ensure the player with the best overall chess is WC.
WC title to be representative of who is the best player in the world at any given point in time. Use the ratings list, with the condition that a minimum number of games need to be played per period in order not to be droped from the list. Alternately establish a yearly points score system based on the best tournaments like Formula One.
Neither a single match or single tournament is as accurate as the above-mentioned measures. However it does seem that the chess fans prefer the match format to all others, and that is a good enough reason to maintain it.
The chess world doesn't lose in the outcome of either match. Anand-Topalov, Anand-Kamsky, Kramnik-Topalov and Kramnik-Kamsky are all good matches. Marketing-wise, Anand-Topalov or Topalov-Kramnik would be the best. Kramnik-Kamsky would be a tough sell.
Anand must cement his legacy by defending his title and crush all doubters once and for all. There is no better chessplayer in the world. Look at the results. To me supertournaments show one's strength in relation to the strongest available competition... not just a performance against one single player. Anand has been a consistent player and he'll win the match.
China's Wang Yue should start preparing for that 2700 challenge match against Anand.
I'm rooting for Anand; although Bilbao result looks disturbing (hopefully it was on purpose to distract Kramnik -- wishful thinking).
At the end, it would be good to have just one world champion without asterisks (classical world champion vs FIDE world champion vs PCA world champion vs Tournament world champion vs Match world campion vs... you get the drift).
I knew he would say that. I knew it.
Daaim scribbled:
"(Anand)there is no better player in the world"
In the absence of a black-skinned World Champion, our racist, thick-lipped Afromaniac will settle for the next darkest color...
There's a lot of back and forth on matches vs. tournaments, and I think we can all agree that tournaments rarely produce "reliable" results. Khalifman, Pono, and Kaz are good players, but, as history proved, not quite deserving to be ranked up there with the top players that R-Bear refers to as inheriting the "Steinitz Tradition." If so, they would have hung on for longer at the highest level.
However, I do not think you can categorically discount tournament results. As has often been noted, the post-Kasparov era has been marked by a lack of domination from the top. Kramnik, Topalov, and Anand have consistently performed above their peers (with some fluctuation). Which makes match play a very important part of determining the "best" player -- but only one part. Anand won his title in a very strong tournament and, I would say, he quite deserves it and the title of champion. However, you are only champion as long as you defend it, and repeated defenses makes one a better or worse champion, thus, the match format is the best test of a player who has consistently won key tournaments.
Gotcha!
rdavis,
I would agree, but Kramnik did not defend his title on a regular basis and his tournament results were not consistent. I'm not sure how your definition holds up. Of course matches are important, but until we undo the mess created by Kasparov's breakaway, then we'll have to merely say "World Champion" with doubt as to whether he is the strongest player in the world.
Daaim:
Arriving at a solid definition of what "World Champion" means is problematic. Do we mean those that defend the title regularly and then keep winning? Probably, but this is clearly not always been the case (i.e. Lasker). It has to be a historically-specific concept, and I think that part of our difficulty in agreeing on the validity of this or that method is that, with the absence (or even 2000 loss) of Kasparov, we have entered a new period that requires new definitions.
We are simply not going to have a champion (right now) who will tower over his or her competitors. Even Kramnik at his invincible best can't dominate all competitions. Topalov is erratic, and there are just a lot of strong competitors (see results of Aronian, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, even Kamsky). I think that "world champion" should just be thought of as one among a number of distinctions (titles, ratings) indicating rank in the current chess climate. It is a title that indicates the winner is perhaps a more deeply prepared, technical, and driven individual, but to say that tournaments don't count while matches do would be to deny the steadily increasing role that tournaments play in the chess calendar as events and development for new players. I'm no expert, but I imagine that there are many more high-level tournaments now than 10 years ago, and with a broader range of participants.
I think that it's exciting to live in a time with ambiguity as to the top player. We're used to a history of single-player domination, and that is a history that is no longer applicable as the means and time to train and compete is becoming more level.
There are certainly some holes in what I've said, but I think for the good of all, I should stop rambling...
"Who says matches cannot produce the same results, if these players were regularly given the opportunity to play matches against the world champion (i.e. the same number of matches as they play super-tournaments). I suspect there would be quite a few upsets. As with tournaments matches are laso affected by external factor such as illness, fatigue etc. "
I doubt there would be many upsets. And in matches, at least the "external factors" are limited to the two players themselves, so if one is sick, he will have to deal with that himself - by taking a short draw or a time out (if available) and basically fight to overcome the problem, etc - while in a tournament player's result may be affected with "external factors" for players who are not in contention, and that can become big enough factors that will prevent the best player from winning.
"The Kramnik-Kasparov result is an example of how the match format doesn't always ensure the player with the best overall chess is WC."
That implies Kasparov is "the player with the best overall", which is a dubious claim. They played a long match and a better player won, AFAIC. We have no better format available that would show us how they stand in terms of relative strengths, so I think we have to go with a match result and assume Kramnik was the superior player at the time.
"WC title to be representative of who is the best player in the world at any given point in time. Use the ratings list, with the condition that a minimum number of games need to be played per period in order not to be droped from the list. Alternately establish a yearly points score system based on the best tournaments like Formula One. "
Actually, it is the Kramnik-Kasparov match that is great example disproving your points, not proving them. Kramnik had a lower rating, but was proven to be a better player. So Kramnik-Kasparov match is a great example of how ratings are inferior to matches. Two players actually played a lot of games against each other without weaker players getting in the way and that format is as close as we can get to figuring out which one was actually stronger. Going by rating would include results of people against weaker players, as well as their results against opponents when either they or their opponents are sick, disinterested, depressed, out of the running, rating includes totally meaningless games played after someone clinched an event title, games played in bad/distracting tournament conditions etc. Finally, someone may simply not care about rating as much as the next guy. But when they play a match, they actually agree on the rules and settings and they prepare hard and try to approach the match in the best possible shape. All those make matches far superior in telling us who is a superior player, because it is pure measure of strength between the two players.
"Neither a single match or single tournament is as accurate as the above-mentioned measures. However it does seem that the chess fans prefer the match format to all others, and that is a good enough reason to maintain it. "
I think fans have good reasons for prefer matches, and the above was my attempt to list some of those reasons.
I think I'll have to remind people of Anand's 3.5-0.5 victory in the 2000 official World Championship over the man who beat Kramnik, to help vote in favor of Anand.
Multiply that by two to imagine how it would result now in 2008. ☺
Exactly. I am with you Daaim!
One more thing. I don't think anyone can dominate at this chess at this computer age. You will have to do quite a bit of "hiding" to unexposed yourselves to the others for your dominance to work. It may not be correct to compare non-computer age with the computer age for chess dominance when you don't have the required amount of complexities to differentiate.
It depends on which part of the world the "fan" is from. I understand and agree that if a fan is from Russia and if that fan wants to help bring the title back to Russia and also if he feels the easiest way to do so is to stand and shout on the roof tops of the 100 years of tradition, he is not going to look at how unjust were the tradition in shutting out a legitimate player from getting a shot at the title for 10 or so long years. Yes, so for some fans there are good reasons for harping on matches in spite of the many cases where we at the end of those matches were more confused about who really was the better player!
I don't know how relevant who is from which country. For all you know, I am not even from Russia. But we do know you are from India - so what? And I am not a Kramnik fan, while you are known as a hardcore Anand supporter. So I don't know how much sense it makes for us to question each other's motivations. You certainly seem to misjudge mine. Maybe we should concentrate on the actual chess-related points people make.
As for legitimate player being shut out from getting a shot at the title for 10 or so long years - I hope you are not talking about Anand. We have had this discussion before and Anand got more than his fair share of chances to play for the classical title - be it an match or some sort of qualifying event. 1993 (FIDE cycle), 1995 (PCA cycle), 1998 (ofered a match with Kramnik, when Shirov ended up taking his place) 2000 (when he was offered a match with Kasparov), 2002 (Dortmund invitation), 2005 (San Luis, which a chance to play for the title later, which topalov ended up taking ahead of Anand), 2007 (Mexico, a chance to play against Kramnik in a match, which he took), and now, as a continuation of that last chance, the Bonn 2008 match. Anand's career is full with chances of playing for the classical title. If someone was shot out from getting a shot at the title for 10 or so long years - it sure wasn't Anand. Anand wasn't being shut out, he was the one who kept other people shut out from getting a shot at the title.
I don't think you are from Russia. However, you DO strongly support Kramnik. You don't admit it publicly though. But, that is good enough for me to say you are a Kramnik fan. You agree or not, in many cases the place where you are from is very relevant to the point of view that you hold.
It is Anand who was shut of of the "title" matches for 10 or so years. I don't know if you have ever heard of the term "eye-wash". Private championships and offers from chess organizations with no governing body and no constitutions are just good for nothing. Was there a guarantee for the money that you lose from playing FIDE? Can you sue something that is non-existing in case of failed matches? There is good reason to believe those break-away offers were just a bait to shut you out of the official FIDE championships. It is strange you prefer to continue to call them chances offered to Anand even after we having rehearsed this over many times.
The reason that the match tradition hasn't worked well in the last few years is that FIDE is run by morons, not because it isn't the best way to find the best player.
rdh,
Well... one can say that, but Kasparov made a mess of things at the time there was the match system. At that time we knew that Kasparov was the strongest player and before him Karpov.
I would argue that even if FIDE would have used the match system instead of the knockouts, people would not have accepted the champion. You may remember there was a match between Karpov and Timman (after Kasparov defected from FIDE). Did you accept that result? Most didn't and even I, a Karpov supporter, felt cheated.
I must admit that the last five years have been a mess, but I'm not sure you can place the entire blame on FIDE. They had a lot of help.
I don't think anyone thinks FIDE really deserves sole blame. Sure, Kasparov's decision, like most major decisions, had negative consequences. It created a problematic situation, and FIDE made plenty of missteps in that position, both at the time and later (Prague Agreement, anyone?). It wasn't just a schism that created what we have, but continual choices made by all sides right up until now. Let's just hope that this match finally settles the disputes between the rival organizations, the rival formats for determining champions that those organizations favored, and heads us into a new phase in the structure of professional, elite chess as an institution.
I wouldn't blame Kasparov for everything. I wouldn't give clean chit to FIDE. In fact, the schism was good in that it brought more money into the game?? and also kept FIDE under a constant check. The problem was it wasn't followed up properly and it ended up being worse than FIDE?? But my point is, you don't necessarily have to defend your side breakaway at the cost of some innocent people like Anand by transferring the blame for some of its own misdeeds. You may look ridiculous before FIDE but you did it, so accept it and move on!
Comparing the poll results here to the same poll's results at Susan Polgar's blog suggests that you have smarter readers.
the filter by country drop down doesn't show India, Russia :(
You could also say that if FIDE hadn't been run by morons Kasparov wouldn't have defected. You think Olafsson or Euwe couldn't have found a way to keep Gazza and Short on board?
But anyway I really meant the last eight years. If FIDE had just knocked their pathetic KOs on the head and organised San Luis as a candidates in the first place, to say nothing of defaulting Topalov as they obviously should have done, then we wouldn't have had half this trouble.